The Government doesn’t understand security guarding!

It follows that 82-year-old pensioner Walter Wolfgang was indeed assaulted by the ‘stewards’ at the Labour Party Conference on 28 September because he did apprehend immediate, unlawful violence. That is a criminal offence contrary to the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Mr Wolfgang’s apprehension was unlawful because the force used was unreasonable. The lawful use of force is defined in Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 as follows: “A person may use as much force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting the lawful arrest of offenders, or suspected offenders, or of persons unlawfully at large.”

Mr Wolfgang was sat down and passive when at least two ‘stewards’ grabbed him forcefully, from behind, and then ejected him from the venue for doing nothing other than shouting: “Nonsense!” once during an oration being delivered by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. That is dissent, but dissent isn’t a crime in a democracy. It therefore follows that the force used was excessive and unreasonable in the circumstances. An assault occurred, and thus a crime was committed.

The same applies to Steve Forrest, who was also ejected and assaulted by other ‘stewards’ at the Conference. All Forrest did was urge the ‘stewards’ to leave the old man alone, again from a sedentary position. That is not a crime, but a request for criminal activity to cease.

My understanding of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is that if individuals are carrying out a licensable activity on licensed premises then they will require a licence from the Security Industry Authority (SIA) to do so. Otherwise, they will be committing a criminal offence punishable by the Courts.

Alice Mahon – the former Labour MP for Halifax – said she saw “several security guards dive” on Mr Wolfgang. The venue where the Labour Party Conference was held (The Brighton Centre) is a licensed premises and the ‘stewards’ were clearly carrying out licensable activities, given that Schedule 2 of the Act defines such activities as:

• guarding premises against unauthorised access or occupation, against outbreaks of disorder or of damage;
• guarding property against destruction or damage, against being stolen or against being dishonestly taken or obtained;
• guarding one or more individuals against any form of assault or injuries that might be suffered in consequence of the unlawful conduct of others.

The ‘stewards’ or ‘security guards’ were responding to what they considered to be an ‘outbreak of disorder’. In other words, a licensable activity. They duly restrained Mr Wolfgang and Mr Forrest. Then they used excessive and unreasonable force to assault them without being in possession of an SIA licence. That is a criminal offence. Neither spectator had committed any offence. Unlike the ‘stewards’ or ‘security guards’ at the venue. For that they must be held to account.

Appearing on breakfast television, Prime Minister Tony Blair then had the cheek to excuse the ‘stewards’ for their behaviour, yet he and his Government introduced the Act to prevent this type of occurrence, and to make sure such instances didn’t pass by unpunished! None of the ‘stewards’ or ‘security guards’ on site at The Brighton Centre had been trained or licensed as prescribed under the Act.

I take it from Tony Blair’s comments that we in the private security industry are also going to be excused when we deploy untrained and unlicensed labour? After all, if this kind of security is good enough for the Labour Party, it must surely be good enough for the rest of us?! We all know the answer to that one, though.

Clearly, the Labour Party has demonstrated – by way of Mr Blair’s sorry attempt to excuse such outrageous behaviour – that its constituents do not have a clue as to what security guarding is or indeed should be. It therefore follows that the Government should not have been allowed to impose legislation on a tract of private sector business that it plainly doesn’t understand.

That lack of understanding probably explains much as to why the Home Office is unable to answer simple questions relating to the Act. Questions like: “Why was the in-house clause allowed to stand when, at first principles – in the paper outlining the Government’s proposals – it was denied”? And: “Why was Lord Bassam allowed to go unchallenged at the second reading of the Bill when he plainly misled the House (see Hansard 620 Cols 574-602, Monday 18 December 2000)”? Still, there is light at the end of the tunnel. At least the security industry can use the video of the Wolfgang and Forrest debacle in communication and conflict management training to demonstrate worse case scenarios and how not to eject individuals from a venue.

Jon Elliott,

Director Matrix Security

The Editor replies:

An excellent LetterTo The Editor, Jon.

SMT is in total agreement with your sentiments. The kind of thuggish behaviour we witnessed at The Brighton Centre is exactly that which the Security Industry Authority’s regulatory regime has been designed to eradicate.

We have said all along that the initial SIA regulatory regime is an excellent base point. However, many now feel that there ought to be one standard for all (ie the in-house sector should also be included within the provisions of the Act), and that this standard must be rigidly enforced by punitive fines and rigorous sentencing.

Returning to Mr Wolfgang’s experiences, the day after the incident occurred Tony Blair declared that the stewards involved were (and I quote) “Labour Party volunteers”. Volunteers – ie those who receive no payment or payment in kind as defined by HM Revenue and Customs and Excise – are outside of the SIA legislation and don’t require a licence.

SIA licences for security officers will become law on 20 March 2006. It is not presently a legal requirement for security officers deployed at non-licensed premises to hold an SIA licence.

Venues that may need to be licensed with a liquor or entertainment licence for one specific event may be unlicensed for other events.

According to The Home Office, the Labour Party is now “investigating the Wolfgang case”. Hopefully, the truth of the matter will out at some point.